Editorial: Assessment of Education Policy: Issues and Challenges by Anne Sikwibele

Internationally, there has been a paradigm shift in the modalities and design of external assistance. The shift is from the Orthodox donor-by-donor and project-by-project approach to Sub- or Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps) of support. Generally, SWAps are networks where a diversity of players converges to affect change for a common good. The main argument for SWAps is that external assistance is more effective and better enhanced if all cooperating partners in a specific sector jointly work together. In Zambia, there have been policy efforts to reflect the international paradigm shift in sector prioritisation and project design. The Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Programme (BESSIP) is a case in point. After three years of implementation it is generally acknowledged that BESSIP is a success story. By and large BESSIP has brought about improved coordination and harmonisation of donor activities. Partnerships have been formed which have helped in building partner confidence and sharing mutual responsibilities in the planning, management and implementation of the programme. Indeed donors have turned into cooperating partners. However, it is argued in this article that the road to this cooperation has not been all that smooth. The underlying donor/recipient relations may fundamentally continue to colour the working relations and tilt the balance of influence in favour of those who have the purse.

The Zambian Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Programme (BESSIP) is Zambia’s first comprehensive programme meant to implement the 1996 National Policy on basic education. The Jomtien Conference Declaration and the observed decline of national education standards set the context for establishing a focused and comprehensive sub-sector investment programme in 1999 with the overall developmental objectives of improving access, quality, equity and relevance of basic education. The first phase of BESSIP was to run from 1999 to 2002.

BESSIP is a complex and comprehensive programme which has successfully synergised several national policies and interventions such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, (PRSP), the Public Sector Reform Programme (PSRP), National Gender Policy, HIV/AIDS, etc., into one coherent programme. It is organised around nine components. Its strategies can be grouped under three broad thematic categories. The first category involves the provision of school infrastructure, requisite materials, etc., that have an impact on improving access and arresting dropout rates. The second category deals with the implementation of systemic curriculum and pedagogical reforms, focusing on quality improvement, improved learning achievement and management capacity building. The third thematic category deals with the implementation of cross-cutting themes such as Gender, HIV/AIDS and Special Educational Needs.

BESSIP is financed through a combination of resources ranging from the government budget to multilateral and bilateral grants and loans. An estimated US $340 million is needed to implement BESSIP between 1999 and 2002. The programme is fully subscribed with no financing gap. Currently, external aid to BESSIP is being routed through the following Modalities: Modality 1: Under this modality, funds from various sources are put together in a common bank account and controlled by the Ministry of Education. This is also referred to as the ‘pool’ approach. Modality 2: Funds from different sources are available for all BESSIP components but are not mingled in a common bank account. The Ministry controls the funds. Modality 3: While the Ministry controls the funds, they are only available for restricted and specified components and they are not in a common bank account. Modality 4: Funds are not controlled by the Ministry and are made available only for specified BESSIP components/activities.

The Programme is based on, inter alia, the principle of consensus building through formal and informal consultations. BESSIP is implemented and managed within the line functions of the Ministry of Education. However, BESSIP is being overseen through the following structures which are also used for donor consultation and coordination: Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for provision of policy direction; Programme Coordinating Committee (PCC) for technical support and monitoring of the programme and the Management Implementation Team (MIT) for day-to-day operations.

The BESSIP Experience

The processes of setting up programmes as complex as BESSIP are always shrouded in contentious issues of: defining policy and achieving consensus on programme outputs and how to measure those outputs; capacity to implement, financial resources-both availability and management; national ownership versus donor strategic objectives and agreeing mechanisms for communication and coordination. This article will only highlight BESSIP experience in: (a) obtaining consensus among stakeholders to focus on basic education; (b) getting all parties to agree on the desired outcomes and how to measure them; and (c) achieving mechanisms for donor coordination.

Generally, there was a consensus among all stakeholders about the need to focus on Basic Education. This was so, firstly, because Zambia’s National Policy on Education had placed priority on basic education. Secondly, the Ministry employed an all-inclusive strategy by extending a hand of partnership to all stakeholders. The Ministry embraced all donor projects and NGO initiatives in the sub-sector. The Ministry provided a forum for joint planning, and allowed flexibility on both sides on a number of support mechanisms such as pooled and earmarked funding and other funding modalities. I am suggesting here that it was easy to obtain consensus for focusing on Basic Education for the other reason that it has been on an international agenda since the Jomtien Conference. If the national policy agenda was different, I doubt whether this consensus would have been achieved because there is an inherent tension between international and local/national agendas where these agendas are at cross-roads. Even with BESSIP, the initial stages were characterised by arguments over the scale of the programme, that it was too ambitious and unrealistic. Others set difficult conditionalities.

The Ministry of Education as a whole has benefited from the developed BESSIP culture of systematic planning and designing of results-based programmes. However, agreeing on programme outcomes and modalities for measuring those outcomes was the most difficult challenge. The mood during the negotiation process is correctly captured by the Ministry’s Permanent Secretary when she writes:

In the case of BESSIP the initial stages were characterized by protracted consultation and long preparatory processes centered on procedures, funding modalities, accountability and MOE capacity to sustain a programme of such magnitude. The need for stakeholder engagement and MOE ownership of the process also took centre stage. The process of negotiating agreement on these issues cost BESSIP valuable time and diverted attention from improving teaching and learning at the classroom level and from focusing capacity building at the District level which was closest to the point of delivery. It become evident that designing a results-based programme was no easy task, as it required reaching agreement on expected outcomes, ensuring that the outcomes are achieved and that they are being monitored. Under BESSIP, it was realized that the process of confidence building, required transparency even though monitoring and evaluation of programmes tend to be politically sensitive [B.Y. Chilangwa 2002, “Sector Programme in Practice”, seminar paper, unpublished].

Indeed defining a programme agenda is even more political because it involves vested strategic interests.

The last issue I wish to highlight in this article is that of formation of partnerships and implementation and management of the BESSIP Programme. The basic problem here is the institutionalisation of procedures and synchronisation of management structures. In order to address these problems, it was therefore imperative from the beginning to set up joint formal mechanisms for this interaction. There was need on both sides for greater commitment to improve aid relationships based on mutual understanding of the complexity of the programme. This was addressed through a three-tier management and policy structure system. Mechanisms for communication between the Ministry and donors have been formalised and regularised through these structures though several informal mechanisms also exist. The Semi-Annual Reviews create a forum for dialogue and negotiations. However, these reviews in the early stages were acrimonious. On the other hand, the informal donors meetings have created a forum for donors to negotiate and discuss issues amongst themselves, thus relieving the would-be pressures if the Ministry were involved in resolving some of the differences that exist between them. The other factor contributing to this good working relationship is the shift in the way Technical Assistance (TA) is being handled. The Ministry is now involved in the selection process of TA. In some cases, TAs operate from the Ministry building. Nevertheless, some donors continue to operate in the old orthodox fashion.

Zambia’s Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Programme is a good case where some donors have, to some extent, turned into cooperating partners by practice rather than mere change in nomenclature. However, a lot remains to be done to sustain and nurture this relationship.

[1] The views expressed in this article do not reflect the position of the Zambian Ministry of Education. However, I wish to acknowledge the inclusion of some ideas from seminar/conference papers officially presented by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education.